Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 -- (House of Representatives - June 06, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, in January, the Department of Homeland Security made significant changes to our homeland security effort. They announced the areas eligible for fiscal year 2006 UASI grants.

For the first time, Sacramento and San Diego were not identified as high-risk areas. While Sacramento and San Diego did receive fiscal year 2006 funding, the new eligibility guidelines have put our funding for next year and beyond in jeopardy.

Sacramento is the capital of the sixth largest economy in the world and home to dozens of critical Federal and State governmental buildings. Much of the State's water, electricity, and telecommunications systems are managed from Sacramento. Of considerable concern is an attack on Sacramento's dams and levees, not only because of potential loss of life and impact to Sacramento's families, but an economic impact as well. According to a Sacramento Bee analysis, the economic impact of a major flood in Sacramento would cost the region $35 billion. This is damage to homes, loss of jobs, and government revenues.

The San Diego area contains the Nation's seventh largest city adjacent to a heavily trafficked international border, a busy port, and tourist attractions. Nor should it be overlooked that a number of naval and Marine bases are located in San Diego, including the largest naval base in the country.

With fewer installations after four rounds of BRAC, an attack on even one could result in even greater impact. An attack of either of these cities would have repercussions well beyond our region.

Therefore, Congressman Filner and I have very real concerns about DHS's new eligibility guidelines accurately addressing our homeland security needs. We all agree that a risk-based grant program is an effective use of our limited resources. However, policy is only as good as the information that goes into it.

DHS has already acknowledged that it failed to take into account the catastrophic downstream impact to my district if there were an attack on Folsom Dam. This only raises the question of what other targets have they overlooked.

That is why we need to ensure that DHS properly considers the catastrophic and cascading effects of an attack on critical infrastructure such as dams and levees, as well as determine a way to factor in the presence of drug trafficking and other organized crime activities that relate to terrorism and strategic defense considerations.

This amendment would withhold funding until DHS has properly addressed these issues. It would ensure accountability. It is important that DHS address these concerns. We need increased transparency and understanding of the process before the next UASI review is conducted.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that a DHS reauthorization bill will come to the floor before the next risk assessment begins.

As a result, we must take this opportunity to require DHS to perform a thorough threat assessment of each urban area. We have an obligation to ensure we are meeting our national security needs. But the questions surrounding the UASI grant eligibility draw into question whether we are meeting that need.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/